Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3887_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 3887 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE LOCATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 489 OF 1979 (Chapter 718 , Stats . 1979) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Redlands is located in a .standard metropole-- tan statistical area (SMSA) with a population of 250, 000 or more which is served by a public transit operator, as defined in Section 99210 of the Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, Sections 25351 . , 25351. 1, 25351 . 15 , 37352 . 1 and 37352 .2 of the Government Code , added by Senate Bill 489 of 1979 (Chapter 718 , Stats. 1979) require that the board or legislative body of a county or city so situated give consideration to the location of existing public transit corridors in the construction , purchase , or leasing (for five or more years) of public buildings ; and WHEREAS , a transit corridor, as defined by Section 50093 .5 of the Health and Safety Code, represents that area within one-quarter mile of a transit route on which the level of service is at or above the average for the transit system as a whole ; and WHEREAS , the City Council is the fully authorized legislative body of the City of Redlands ; THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that all future public buildings will be located in corridors served by public transit service at or above average service levels for the area unless a finding is made either that it is not feasible to locate the public building in such a transit corridor, as determined from application of criteria discussed in. Exhibit A, or that the affected local transit operator will provide service to the public building, or that the purpose of the public building does not require transit access. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the procedure for making these findings will include requesting the assistance of the local transit operator in making a determination of infeasibility and formally notifying the transit district as to the ultimate location decision. Exception to this procedure will be permitted for public buildings generating less than 200 trip ends daily unless that public building serves a disabled or otherwise transit dependent population, and those public buildings described in Exhibit B of this resolution. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 19th day f April 8�. t: Mayor of the City of Redlands ATTEST: City`Cler}� i r I , r,Qrrie royzer, City Clerk, City of Redlands , hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April , 1983 , with the fallowing vote : AYES: Councilmembers DeMirjyn, Martinez , Gorman, Johnson; Mayor Roth NOES : None 1 ABSENT• None CitytClerk f v' Ordinance No. 3887 Page two - EXHIBIT A CRITERIA FOR FINDING IT IS INFEASIBLE TO LEASE, PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC BUILDING IN A TRANSIT CORRIDOR There are two primary criteria for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a public building in a transit corridor. These are: the unavail- ability of appropriate sites or space within a reasonable time frame, and excessive cost differentials between sites that are and are not in transit corridors, respectively. Site or space availability is relatively easy to determine. For construc- tion of a new building, the availability of appropriate' vacant sites within transit corridors would be the measure. An exception would be a major mid- or high-rise building that could use a site already developed but substantially under-utilized. Appropriate vacant sites would consider zoning and land use compatibility. A single family residential neighbor- hood would not be the appropriate location for a city hall or courthouse despite availability of vacant land. For space to be purchased or leased, the availability of appropriately sized buildings within the service area of the building would be the measure. If space is absolutely not avail- able within a transit corridor, such a finding should be made and docu- mented as the basis for selecting a site or space outside those corridors served by average or better levels of transit service. Excessive cost differentials are difficult to define in the abstract, so there is no single formula for cost difference that can be utilized to justify a finding of infeasibility based on cost. The critical amount would depeiisv upon the jurisdiction or agency, but a one-two percent differ- ence clearly would not be significant, while a four or five percent differ- ence may or may not be. A significant or excessive cost differential must be considered in light of overall facility construction and operating costs, not just rent per square foot or land cost. In a typical office environment with each staff person utilizing 200-225 square feet, the cost of leasing office space is likely to be only 10 percent of labor costs when benefits are included. Even excluding other cost items such as materials , supplies, and utilities, a doubling of rent levels would account for only a 10 percent increase in operating costs. As a more realistic example, a 20 to 40 percent rent differential , the largest amount likely to be associated with differences of transit- access, would only represent a 2 to 4 percent differ- ential in total costs. Other factors could well offset this minor differ- ence, such as a savings in number of parking spaces required or increased employee efficiency resulting from a convenient and accessible location. Good transit service could reduce parking required by 20 to 50 percent. In evaluating cost differentials, consideration should be given to private (personal automobile) costs imposed on staff or clientel by a decision to locate a public building outside a transit corridor. Other considerations should include opportunity costs resulting froom land productivity lost to parking facilities that Tright not otherwise be necessary, or the maintenance costs of parking (security, lighting, cleaning) required L�cause of lack of Transit access. Public Buildings Which Public Buildings Which Do not Require Compliance Require Co; .fiance Fire stations Municipal or county administrative offices (ci►.y halls , etc. ) Police stations Health agencies or clinics Vehicle maintenance or storage Courts facility Warehouse or storage facility Social service agencies Animal pound Senior citizen centers ,Neighborhood park or tot lot Libraries Wilderness park or camp Community center or recreation facility Ser:,age treatment facility Community or sub--regional park Waste disposal site Jails A suggested criterion for determining if other types of public buildings are required to locate in a transit corridor (including. those on the list of public buildings normally requiring compliance) would be a minimal trip generation level of 200 persons per day. Table I presents a. matrix of trip _ generation_ ner empl9yee and per 1 ,000 square feet for various types of _ facilities , uata based on surveys by Caltrans and other agencies. Larger buildings could be excluded as well if the aaplicant could demonstrate to the transit operator that lower trip generation mates were appropriates EXHI BIT B PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC BUILDING DOES NOT REQUIRE TRANSIT ACCESS There are certain public buildings that by their nature may not be compa- tible with or benefit from a location in a transit corridor. This would include: public buildings generating an insignificant number of public or employee vehicular or transit trips; public buildings incompatible with land uses normally found in major transit corridors; and public buildings that must be located in particular service areas regardless of the quality of transit access. Particular types of public buildings -may be exempted or excluded from review for several of the above reasons. Examples are easily visualized. These would include public buildings that represent extensive rather than intensive use of the land, such as ware- houses, sewage plants, vehicle maintenance yards, etc. Such uses, apart from generating relatively few trips that could be served by transit, would also be incompatible land uses with the residential , retail , or office commercial uses often found along the major arterial routes that receive high levels of transit service. Other uses that would generate few trips that could be served by transit include uses such as fire sta- tions, police stations, animal pounds, etc. Few public trips are associated with a fire station or police station, and trips to an animal pound or shelter generally require the use of an automobile since pets are discouraged or prohibited on buses. . =- Public buildings that are oriented to serving a neighborhood such as a small park or tot lot are clearly not concerned with regional access nor do they generate a large number of vehicle trips. In contrast, a major youth recreation facility or senior citizen center that draws from a larger area and serves a more transit dependent client group would represent the types of public buildings that should be located in a corridor with average or above average levels of transit service. Based upon the expectation that such public buildings do not require transit access, a list of public buildings that typically would be exempted from compliance with this legislation i s presented below. A list of those public buildings that normally would be expected to comply with this legislative mandate is also presented. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive but rather to denote the type of public buildings that would and would not require review. The intent of the legislation and the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments are to avoid the substitution of short-run cost considerations for proper long-term planning. Cost differences in the purchase of a site or a building must be amortized over the life--cycle of the building, not considered only in year of purchase. In conclusion, a cost differential of significant proportions is a legiti- mate reason for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a public building in a transit corridor, but differences must be real and not offset by other savings associated with a transit accessible site•